Lost in Translation: Are Insufficient Subtitles Robbing Unilingual Viewers of Potential Enjoyment?

Last year, when I took my first semester of Spanish, I began to notice that I could tell what Spanish-speaking characters were saying some of the time in the movies and television shows I was watching. Unfortunately, I was able to understand just enough of the Spanish dialogue to realize that the subtitles at the bottom of the screen bore remarkably little resemblance to what was actually being said. Sometimes subtitlers leave out large portions of the dialogue and just write sentences conveying the gist of what is being said, sometimes they just write something different altogether that carries the same emotional flavor (threatening, funny, angry, etc). Sometimes they just miss the whole point and write something totally different from the emotions conveyed by the actual dialogue.

Strangely enough, this isn’t only done with foreign films either. I was watching a crummy old episode of Forever Knight with a scene that took place during the Spanish Inquisition and most of the dialogue was left out of its subtitles too. As if that weren’t enough, this also happens in reverse. There have been a few occasions during which I watched a movie with English dialogue that had foreign subtitles and was shocked to see how poorly translated they were.

If you don’t think this happens often enough, or badly enough, to get worked up about take a quick perusal of the following pages from the Wiki Tropes website (There are other websites with examples as well, but this is my brother’s favorite website so I thought I’d give it a nod.): Blind Idiot Translation, Recursive Translation, Translation Train Wreck.

So, why would anyone do this? Of what possible benefit could mistranslating the dialogue in a movie or TV show be to anyone? There are actually a few reasons for bad subtitling, which have primarily to do with laziness. These reasons include such things as:

Machine translators. If you’ve ever dumped a large piece of text like a magazine article into, say, the Google translator you might have noticed that it doesn’t always come out as accurate as you would have liked. Some subtitling outfits use similar (or not as good) software without the use of humans to check its work. As you might expect, this results in some pretty crummy subtitles.

Poorly trained and/or non-native speakers. There actually are official training programs for subtitlers, but many people hired to write subtitles (and captions) for movies have very little language training. Also, people translating from something like Chinese to English, for example, are generally not native English speakers and, therefore, don’t have the best grasp of how to phrase a translation so that both the literal and figurative meanings get through.

Just plain laziness. Every once in a while, when I see a movie wherein a character will yell something important to another character, I’m shocked to notice that the lazy subtitler merely writes “yelling” instead of actually translating the dialogue. This is the absolute height of slothfulness and should result in the subtitler being summarily slapped about the head and shoulders with a wet rubber chicken. However, it’s more common in closed captioning than in subtitles, implying that some English speaking captioners are lazier (or perhaps just more hard-of-hearing) than some subtitlers. Aside from that, there are examples wherein a character will, for example, be eloquently confessing his wrongdoings and begging forgiveness in a foreign language while the subtitler writes something along the lines of “Uh, sorry.” This kind of translator deserves two wet rubber chicken slappings and an atomic wedgie.

There are other reasons as well, but these seem to be the most common. So, what’s the solution to this problem? Well, the industry isn’t going to change any time soon so that only leaves two options:

(1) Learn several languages so that the subtitles only become loose guidelines for when you trip over unknown words/phrases.

As I said in the beginning of this post, I didn’t notice just how bad this problem was until I took a Spanish class. The good part of this was that it allowed me to get more enjoyment out of Spanish dialogue because I didn’t have to rely entirely upon poorly translated subtitles in order to understand what was going on. The only potentially tedious part is that I now know that I’ll have to learn a bit of at least a few more languages before I can get anything really meaningful out of movies and TV from France, Germany, etc.

(2) Download subtitles from a specialized subtitle website.

If you’re willing to add them on yourself with a piece of video editing software, it’s pretty easy to find websites with your choice of pre-made subtitles (that might or might not be of better quality than the standard ones) that can be downloaded for free. I’ve never done this myself, but the option is always there for those who want to expend the effort.

I’ll admit that neither of these are actually solutions, but they’re the best one can do at the moment – short of opening a new subtitling company with higher standards, that is.

Although I don’t entirely consider myself a unilingual viewer anymore, I can definitely state without fear of contradiction that viewers requiring subtitles to understand foreign-language dialogue are being cheated of the experiences intended by filmmakers through the poor-quality work exuding from those paid to write subtitles.

Posted in Comparative Analysis, Review, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Date Night Should Have Been Titled “Two Sketch Comedians On The Town”

The 2010 movie Date Night was an interesting attempt at portraying a boring, middle aged, suburban couple caught in a comedic maelstrom of intrigue and adventure. Unfortunately, it’s pretty clear that the writer (whose only other credits are a horror movie and two Shrek films) and actors (who obviously did a considerable amount of ad libbing) had no idea what an average married couple is like. Also, do suburban, middle-class couples seriously cuss that much? Even though Fey and Carell were completely non-believable as a suburban married couple, however, the movie would have been more consistent and quite a bit more believable if they had just done the more intellectually honest thing and made it a story about a married team of comedy writers and/or sketch comedians.

If they still wanted to do the traditional gender roles angle, I think what they should have been aiming for is something more like the vibe from the George Burns and Gracie Allen Show (radio or TV, they’re both about the same). In other words, yeah they’re a married couple with kids and a babysitter, but they’re also a pair of professional silly people with some actual reason for having all those outlandish skits and costume ideas ready in their minds.

Its flaws aside, it’s probably worth a watch for ardent fans of Fey and/or Carell who like it when lines characteristic of their other characters (e.g. Liz Lemon of 30 Rock) leak into the movie now and then.

Posted in Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New Scholarship, Festival, and Contest Page!

Hey there, everybody!

If you’ll direct your attentions to the list of links at the bottom of the banner for this website, you’ll notice that I’ve added a new page. This page contains a list of links to websites for various contests, etc.  that you film students and other types of cineastes might be interested in. I’ll add more items to the list as I find them. Please suggest more if you know of any good ones.

Keep those cameras rollin’!

Posted in announcement | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

400 Hits!

Hey, readers!

The ol’ FPC blog has reached 400 hits. Considering it’s been around for more than a few months (only a month or so until FPC’s one-year anniversary), that’s a pretty wimpy turnout. I’m preparing to start an FPC podcast in the next month or two, so we’ll see if that has any effect.

 

P.S.

Suggestions are welcome.

Posted in announcement | Leave a comment

Some Shows Are Only Good When You’re Tired

Since television became available for streaming over the internet, I’ve realized something that was impossible to notice when I used to watch TV on a programmed schedule. There were a few shows, which shall remain nameless, that I used to watch late at night. The writing in these shows was ingenious, the acting superb, the stories complex, suspenseful, and interesting. One fine day, when I had nothing better to do, I decided to watch a couple episodes of my favorite night time TV shows during the daytime. To my utter amazement, they were terrible! The characters were all emotionally childish idiots, the acting was overwrought in some cases and wooden in others, and the stories (which still had pretty good premises, but were not handled properly) were predictable and much more simple than I had remembered. What had gone wrong? Why did these shows seem so much better late at night?

In fact, nothing had really gone wrong. The only difference was that I was rested and my brain was functioning more fully. In other words, those shows were more enjoyable late at night because I was tired and less of my brain was capable of performing higher brain functions – like whatever level of critical analysis it usually does in the background when I’m rested. Some would probably argue that this observation is moot because there are a few studies showing that television causes an overall reduction in higher brain function anyway. However, I would argue that this probably depends upon what is being watched and whether the viewer is making a conscious effort to think about the content of the programming or not.

Unsurprisingly, psychologists have a term for this phenomenon and its name is “regulatory depletion.” The authors of this article in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, for example, explain that judgment (like critical thought) is a form of self-regulation and that any form of self-regulation requires some amount of mental and even physical exertion (this isn’t the main focus of the article, but it’s still in there). Based upon this, one might suppose that tiredness could result in the unwillingness, or even the inability, to exercise the same level of judgment when viewing a TV show or movie as one would when fully rested.

Now then, it seems to me that one could take this information one of two ways. One could either deliberately watch media of questionable quality while tired because they know it will seem more enjoyable, or one could make a conscious effort to think critically about what’s flowing into one’s brain at all times as a matter of vigilance for the personal integrity of one’s subconscious mind in order to avoid the unintended influence of bad writing/acting on one’s thoughts and personality traits. Since I thought of this idea a year or so ago, I’ve probably been doing a little of each. Now that you’ve read this post, the choice is up to you as well.

Posted in Comparative Analysis, Trend-Spotting | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Modern Perspective on King Lear

Just a few brief thoughts. . .

In watching the 1984 TV version of King Lear last week, it occurred to me that this story would take on quite a different interpretation in modern times. Perhaps it’s over-simplified, but as I tucked the DVD back into its rental envelope this is how I summarized the movie in my mind:

*spoiler alert – this goes for the whole paragraph*

A wealthy old man with Alzheimer’s disease decides to give away his entire fortune to his three daughters before he actually dies, with the expectation that they will take care of him in his waning years, but disinherits his only loving daughter while having a mild dissociative episode. Feeling cast aside, she marries and moves away. In her absence, the other two daughters take all of their father’s wealth and throw him out in the cold – literally in this case. Everybody dies in the end, but that’s Shakespeare for you.

If this story were to be adapted to the trappings of the here and now, Lear would probably get put in an old folks’ home and spend his artificially shortened years in a drug-induced stupor. Or maybe he would basically become a homeless guy wandering the streets. That kind of sounds like the plot of a Lifetime original movie about elder abuse, except for his being a man, but I must admit that many of the works written by Shakespeare and his contemporaries which are usually referred to as “classic” plays from ye olde tymes give off the stench of melodramatic tripe when translated into a modern setting – or even when they’re not. Actually, if it was made for theater release instead of TV, it would probably win an Oscar. Academy Award voters really love to watch anything involving large amounts of overwrought actors/actresses portraying characters who suffer through a chain of almost impossibly horrible tragedies.

In conclusion, “Out foul jelly!”

. . . I will never think of jelly the same way again.

Posted in Comparative Analysis, Trend-Spotting | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Disappearance of the Wide-Eyed, Idealistic Hero

In the last decade, mass media in the United States has seen many changes in the way characters and stories are written. One change which I consider to be particularly unfortunate is the gradual, yet rapid, decline in the use of protagonists who display the characteristics of unyielding idealism, optimism, and moralistic heroism. Yes, there are a few examples of characters who start out that way only to be warped by the writers into embittered, “disillusioned” shells of their former selves. I consider the season 2 downfall of Hiro (and Ando, to a lesser degree later on) from the show Heroes to be a particularly galling instance of this because I really liked that character. But that’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m also not talking about the Eak the cat style character who always suffers for his idealism. I’m talking about the ones who, although they may grow as characters, don’t lose the essential core of their character and usually end up influencing others to become better people (or whatever creature they are) in the process. The kind of character I’m referring to was usually written to be just naïve enough to give almost any villain a chance to “do the right thing,” but just canny enough to know how to use his abilities and outward persona (sometimes consciously, sometimes not) to effectively use human nature to achieve the most fair or moral outcome as the direct effect of the nature of his/her character. By the direct effect of this kind of character, I’m referring to things the character does deliberately. One example might be instances wherein the hero breaks from the crowd in order to take some kind of action (e.g., the stereotypical examples of catching a purse-snatcher, saving a hostage, tackling someone away from an oncoming vehicle, or finding an especially cagey way to negotiate peace with a hostile alien species). Another example might be deliberately intervening in a conversation or other not so action-packed situation wherein the hero seems to be the only one capable of bending the wills of others toward moral, ethical, etc. outcome.

The indirect effect of this kind of character was that the hero and the actions of the character combined with idealism and a certain likable kindness toward others was contagious with the surrounding characters so that even when the heroic character fails in his efforts (or breaks some kind of rule, usually out of sentimentality or kindness) the other characters are so moved by his overall persona that they temporarily modify their own behavior in order to assist the hero out of friendship and/or admiration. In other words, the other characters realize that the hero is the embodiment of ideals they have long ignored (or become jaded against) and are so distressed by the thought of the hero’s defeat that they (temporarily, at least) take on the hero’s battle. The statements I’ve made so far probably sound overly broad and general in nature, so I’d better provide a few examples to explain what I mean.

There are plenty of examples of this kind of character in old films. The majority of this character’s appearance in “classic cinema” is most easily identifiable in Capra films like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Actually, that’s a pretty good example. Consider the protagonist, Smith. The direct effect of this character was his efforts to build a boys’ camp – on land which the antagonist wanted for eeeevil purposes. The indirect effect of this character was when his sheer idealistic goodness of intentions caused the jaded and pessimistic Saunders (also the love-interest of the story) to stay in D.C. and fight what she assumed to be a hopeless battle against the “Taylor machine.”

Several programs I used to watch on television as a kid (during the late 1980s through the 1990s) had a character matching this description as either one of the supporting characters or as the central protagonist. A short list of such characters from modern TV and movies would include the protagonist from McGyver, Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation, Daniel Jackson from Stargate: SG-1, and Mulder from The X-Files (with a few exceptions, in his case). The most exaggerated example that comes to mind is that of the character Benton Fraser from the show Due South. Although written as almost an Eek the cat like caricature of this kind of character for the sake of humor, Fraser also exhibited quite a bit of character-growth as the show progressed and could definitely be described as a multi-layered or three-dimensional character.

Admittedly, I don’t watch quite as much TV and movies as I used to (only about 4-6 hours a day instead of 12-18), but I really can’t think of a character written in the last couple of years that I could refer to as the classical wide-eyed, idealistic hero type. Upon reflection, it’s probably my favorite kind of character. But short of writing such a character into my own screenplays, I don’t get to see any examples in contemporary TV or film these days.

In short, alack!

Posted in Trend-Spotting | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Go to Film School? (Part 2)

In my last post, I talked about why production-centered classes might be helpful for a wannabe director/producer/screenwriter. This week, I’ll list a few attributes of the more purely scholastic side of film school (e.g. film history/media studies, Gen. Ed. requirements, “networking”).

First of all, let’s talk about film and media studies classes. I’ll be honest, for many years I thought of these classes as being an exercise in pretentiousness for those incapable of actually participating in the making of movies. In some cases I was correct, but not in all. Let me explain further. . .

Media studies classes are more useful than just the contents of their textbooks

Okay, I’m the first to admit that most curriculae for film majors are way too heavy on media studies classes. But taking a couple of these actually can be more helpful than just reading a film history textbook. The main point behind any media studies course is thinking about the context (historical, cultural, aesthetic, technological etc.) of a film, TV show, or whatever. You’re probably thinking that those things are totally unimportant from a production standpoint, but they actually aren’t. Context shapes the story, the acting styles of the performers, the visual aesthetic of the movie, and everything else. Understanding how social mores and trends influenced films in the past can help a filmmaker to make conscious decisions about those aspects in his/her own film – and to know what meanings those decisions might have to the viewer. Some media and film studies classes also focus on aspects of production like editing, lighting, etc. This is useful because, although a production class can allow you to find out HOW to do some special kind of shot or lighting effect, a film studies class can assist you in deciding WHY and WHEN to do something like that based upon how you think it worked out when others did it in their movies. I’ve heard strange complaints to the effect that media studies classes make all students into cookie-cutter filmmakers, but that could really only happen if the students ignored instructions to analyze works and give their own opinions. However, if one truly feels that one is getting somewhat brainwashed, one can always obtain an outlet for their “deviant” point of view (like a blog). Additionally, debating with the other students in the class should provide a means for the outlet of creative and analytical thought.

Then, there’s the vocabulary thing. If you’ve read almost any of my other posts, you’ve probably stumbled across terms like mise en scene, intercutting, or rack focus. You’d learn these eventually just by being around the right people or reading silly enough stuff, but I found that I got comfortable learning and using film jargon much faster by taking classes that use this as their main vocabulary.

GE courses provide fodder for screenwriters and can get you into a better BA program

All of those “boring” courses like history, political science, linguistics, and physical anthropology may turn out to have been pointless exercises to future pastry chefs, graphic artists, or software programmers, but for filmmakers they’re a source of research materials and inspiration for screenplays. Every movie and TV show has to be about something. That something is determined by the screenwriter’s base of knowledge. The more diverse your body of knowledge, the more different kinds of stories you can write. How can you write a great political thriller without some in-depth knowledge of political science? You can’t. Even the writers of the show Bones had to learn a little bit about physical anthropology before sitting down in front of a keyboard.

Furthermore, where you take your GE reqs can significantly influence your choice of undergrad film programs later on. How, you ask? Firstly, consider that some film schools have a pre-major system. If you don’t take the pre-major classes either at that same school or at one with a good articulation agreement for similar classes you might be looking at as much as an extra year of study if you transfer there – or an inferior program if you don’t. Secondly, consider that many of the GE reqs at one school or another might be fulfilled by classes in your field of study. Some colleges/universities allow students to satisfy art, humanities, literature, and even critical thinking areas in their GE curriculum with film classes. The more film classes you take, the better your transcripts will look to a prospective film school.

As a quick side note on this topic: Most people will claim that it doesn’t matter where you go for your first two years of college because all general education patterns are the same. Having taken my GE courses from 6 different California community colleges, and one in Hawaii (for reasons too lengthy and ridiculous to go into at present), I can tell you that this is not the case. Your choices for fulfilling a GE curriculum can easily be extremely narrow and stale at one place or a cornucopia of fun and interesting courses at another. If you have a choice, read through college catalogs and term schedules (don’t trust the catalog alone) for different places and choose based upon your interests. The first place I went had a grand total of three film classes and a very slim selection of GE applicable classes. It took me way too long to learn that I could take online classes from several different places at once if I wanted to, and I never did try cross-enrollment with four-year schools. Don’t make my mistakes if you can help it.

The “N” word: networking

Yes, I have to mention this. Often thought of as the primary, or only, reason for attending film school, networking is simply a way of referring to the process of meeting people who may help your career out later on. You network with teachers because they can give you a letter of recommendation or introduce you to people in the industry, you network with fellow students because they can either become co-workers or draw you into a project they’re working on after graduation, you network with employers because you usually get a job as a student intern, and you network with visiting lecturers because they might remember you or keep in contact with you after they leave – providing you with a possible “in.”

Because of the power of networking, the most common way that most film school grads get a job in the industry nowadays is by applying somewhere they had an internship at as a student. It logically follows that the best way to get a job in the media industry is through an internship. And, finally, that the easiest way (and frequently the only way) to get an internship is. . . you guessed it! To be a film student.

Conclusion

If you want to be a filmmaker, film school may be the best thing for you. Then again, it may not. With all the arguments out there against the idea, I thought I should put in my two cents in favor of it. In the end, however, the decision is entirely up to you. Good luck!

Posted in List, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Go to Film School? (Part 1)

If you look around on the internet, there are some pretty convincing arguments against the idea of going to school to learn about filmmaking, mostly revolving around the cost or the time and effort it takes to earn a degree. Also, I will admit that there can be some real hazards for students nowadays, like having your school decide to suspend their film major/degree or rarely offering the courses you need. I’ve experienced both of these and I can tell you it isn’t fun. Additionally, for a rare few, maybe going to school wouldn’t really help that much. Some people can insinuate themselves into any job with the aid of a silver tongue and learn the business through osmosis in the first month or so (I always think of Tony Curtis’ character in The Great Impostor when I run into these types of people). As for me, I’ve decided to take the film school route. Hopefully some of you will find it helpful to know a few of the reasons why.

Firstly, there are some habits and pieces of information that you will likely learn more quickly and easily than if you just try to fake the knowledge and pick them up on the fly during some job you weaseled your way into. Some of the advantages to taking production classes include. . .

The voice of experience is payed to improve your filmmaking skills:

The first thing I noticed about my earliest efforts with a video camera was that my movies looked a little “off.” This, as I now know, was due to abominable production values (they were about the same quality as the amateur home movies of my childhood birthday parties). One of the great parts about taking a production class is that the teacher can look at your video, tell you why it looks so bad, and tell you exactly how to fix the problem. After the first couple of times, you start to correct yourself before even making the mistake. Sometimes it’s something as simple as the position of the camera, sometimes it’s more involved. For example, it’s not always the best solution, but sometimes you’d be surprised what a difference a clip-on lanyard microphone makes in a talking-head interview segment. Then, there’s more stylistic things like shot composition, framing, etc. If you try to get your work critiqued during an actual production, you’ll probably just end up wasting somebody’s money and getting replaced. Also, apprenticeships have pretty much gone the way of the horse and cart in lieu of interns (aka film students).

Classes provide the opportunity to learn the exact skills you need and instantly practice by applying them:

The most important aspect of ANY production is pre-production planning. I can’t tell you how much pain you will experience if you go to a chosen location with nothing but a screenplay and a few storyboards, especially if you hope to shoot every shot in the order in which it was written. One of the most useful things I’m still learning in my film/video classes is how to use production sheets, shot diagrams/lists, storyboards, etc. to make a production go smoothly. Take shot diagrams, for example. If you shoot two people talking at a table, and you’re silly enough to shoot each person talking, the waiter writing notes and so forth, in the written sequence you could end up setting up the camera, lights, etc. on the same location and/or angle several times. If you use tools like shot  diagrams/lists, you will save time by getting all the shots that use a particular set up at the same time. This is the example my Intro to Film/Video teacher used in my first production class.

A willing cast and crew comes with the class:

You can only hide in the room above the garage making stop-motion movies by yourself before you try to make movies with real people in them. And making short movies using only heavily coerced family members can get old pretty fast. Working with other film students in a production class can provide a “transitional phase” (euphemism for practice) between trying to make your mom play a convincing corpse and getting a complete stranger to give you an Oscar-winning performance.

Easy access to a small artists’ community

Most places that have anything close to an actual film program also come with a performance venue of some kind. There are usually student film festivals, opportunities to get one’s written play performed, and galleries to display one’s work. If not, you can get together with a few other students (and maybe a teacher) and get something started. Being recognized in some manner as the best filmmaker or screenwriter on campus can make you a big fish in your small pond. That can really pay off later on.

So, how are the non-production film classes (e.g. film history, media studies) helpful for a wannabe director/producer/screenwriter? I’ll talk a little about that in my next post.

Posted in List | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Italian Native Americans and German Japanese: The Probable Importance of Verisimilitude in Casting

Perhaps it doesn’t matter, perhaps it does. But no matter how good the acting ability of the players in movies and television, ranging from many of the characters in the 1935 movie Charlie Chan in Egypt to the character Gwen in the more recent (and, admittedly, highly modified in other ways) 2008 television show Merlin, one can’t help but wonder why the actors cast are not of the same ancestral/cultural backgrounds as the characters themselves. It isn’t as though there are too few of every kind of actor/actress to go around.

So, how important is cultural/physical accuracy in casting, really? Let’s explore the history of this for a minute. In live theater, especially in English Medieval era to Renaissance era companies, all the characters (including women) were played by males. Because women were not allowed to perform in theater, young boys always filled the roles of female characters. I’m sure some of these boys were very fine actors, but I’m also sure that mildly observant members of the audience were probably occasionally distracted from the play by thoughts like “Hmm, that Juliet sure has some unusual bone structure. . . plus her voice keeps changing.” Although women were allowed to play female roles some time in the late 1600s, the long-standing tradition of casting whatever actors were already around to play every ethnicity continued. With the limited numbers in a theater company this is somewhat understandable, but once the motion picture industry really got rolling there weren’t quite so many excuses anymore.

My favorite example of this, probably because of the famous so-called “crying indian” commercial (a “Keep America Beautiful” commercial), is Iron Eyes Cody (the son of two Italian immigrants whose real name was Espera DeCorti). Although his false portrayal as a Native American was self-perpetuated, the casting of an Italian, Mexican, etc. to play a Native American has always been pretty common. Aside from Cody, there are actually still many actors who almost never play a character of their own ancestral/cultural background. For example, Anthony Quinn (an Irish-Mexican who also played Arabs, Italians, Greeks, Chinese, and Hawaiians), Eric Avari (an Indian who almost always plays middle-eastern characters), and Tony Amendola (who plays Greeks, Mexicans and Arabs). Even Sir Laurence Olivier played a Moor (an archaic term for several different ethnicities) in the 1965 movie version of Othello.

Some people try to make an emotionally-charged racism issue out of the whole thing. In some cases, it probably is. But in most cases it’s probably just laziness on the part of the casting agents, directors, and so on (and possibly the influence of a limited pool of actors – as with the repeatedly reused contract players owned by studios during Hollywood’s Golden Age). On the one hand, these actors generally do a good job. They convey a the character in a way that is emotionally genuine and are relatively consistent. Peter Lorre, for example, did an excellent job in the role of Japanese man-of-mystery Mr. Moto. On the other hand, this kind of casting takes parts away from perfectly good actors who are actually of Native American, African, Irish, Indian, etc. backgrounds and their physical appearance often makes their characters less believable – if only sub-consciously. Be honest, how often have you thought to yourself “boy, that’s a fake-sounding Irish accent” or “That guy looks about as (insert ancestry other than your own here) as I do!”

There is a third, and somewhat odd, point of view about this issue: that casting someone to match the ethnicity and/or gender of a character is some kind of an -ist (racist, sexist, ?-ist). As anyone who has taken a social science class knows, there is currently a popular theory amongst particularly silly people that gender, race, age and everything else is purely subjective and has no basis in reality. Therefore, some people have stretched this opinion to include casting of actors/actresses. In other words, in theory at least, the filmmakers holding this opinion could believe that casting a 16-year old Chinese girl to play Martin Luther King Jr. in a movie about the late 1960s should not in any way diminish the believability of this character’s portrayal in a movie. If you have an imagination so powerful it verges on the classification of a visual and auditory hallucination, perhaps that’s true. Otherwise, one would tend to believe that verisimilitude depends, at least to some degree, on the similarity of the player to the part being played.

Posted in Comparative Analysis, Trend-Spotting | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment